The San Francisco call. [volume], February 25, 1898, Page 16, Image 16

About The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913

Image provided by: University of California, Riverside; Riverside, CA

                
16
BLACKMAILING EXAMINER
AND BOODLING MANAGER
Record of Infamy Wfych Causes
Decent Journalists to Blush
With Shan)e That Their
Profession Should Be
So Besrr)irched.
WITHIN the past ten days
newspaper readers of this city
and throughout the State have
been treated to a newspaper
'fight' 1 which is unique in the
annaJs of California Journalism. The
character of this "controversy" makes
it of more than ordinary interest, for
in its bearing upon journalistic morals
it affects all the newspapers of the
commonwealth. The only purpose in
referring to the subject at this time is
that The Call hopes by the publication
which accompanies this article to make
a point in favor of journalistic ethics
in San Francisco which shall be last
ing.
So far as this matter has affected the
parties referred to in it. it is o-f very
little public moment. Each man whose
name has been mentioned in connection
with the unfortunate death of John J.
Livernash is probably able to take care
of himself. Certainly W. S. Leake, one
of the editors of The Call, who has
bf>en "made the victim of a personal at
tack by the Examiner, need not ask at
the hands of this or any other journal
a vindication. So far, therefore, as the
matter affects him, it is the desire of
The Call that it shall be considered
as entirely divorced from all his feel
ings or prejudices. Mr. Leake is an
employe of this paper and that is all.
For some time The Call has been mak
ing rapid strides. When it was taken in
charge by the present proprietor it was
understood that every effort would be
made by him and his subordinates to
publir-h the news first, and at the same
time tc "cnduct a journal of which 'AA
readers might be proud and «jf which
the State need not be ashamed. In
pursuance of this determination a great
deal of energy has been expended by
The Call in the pursuit of news. It
has disbursed considerable money in
organizing corps of reporters and cor
respondents who would furnish it by
telegraph and otherwise with the latest
information about all matters of inter
est to the public.
In pursuing this course necessarlly
no attention has been paid to the inter
est of rival journals. At the very out
set the Examiner, which has long
claimed precedence in the domain of
news in California, began a systematic
fight, not only to cut under The Call's
news sources, but by faking and mis
representation to thwart every effort
that might be made by this paper to
gain a place as an enterprising and re-
liable daily newspaper. Those among
newspaper readers who haye f for the
last five months followed the news of
the day must acknowledge that The
Call has won honorable distinction,
notwithstanding the efforts of its rival,
the Examiner, to obstruct its news
sources and damage and destroy its
business.
The pursuit of news referred to re
sulted on last Saturday morning in
the publication of the story of the sui
cide of John J. Livernash, an ex-news
paper man, formerly editor of the
Healdsburg Enterprise and lately a col
lector under the Harbor Commission.
Mr. Livernash called at the office of The
Call on Friday evening and saw one of
its editors. He said he had a story to
sell, stated briefly the nature of it and
asked $100 as compensation. Precau
tions were taken to ascertain whether
or not he was a reliable man, and upon
assurance being brought to the editor
that he was an employe of the State
and respectably connected a bargain
was closed with him.
No one connected with this paper
was aware of his Intention to commit
suicide nor of the subsequently de
veloped fact that he had written the
story of his own death and had sold it
under the guise of an article detailing
the defalcation of a State official.
It- is not necessary at this time to
enter into any detailed narration of tbe
circumstances under which Livernash
sold this article. A sufficient state
ment of the entire affair was given
under oath at the Coroner's inquest on
Wednesday, and those who may desire
to master all the facts of the case are
respectfully referred to yesterday
morning's Call, in which a stenographic
report of the testimony taken by the
Coroner was published. It is sufficient
at this time to say that the publication
of Livornash's extraordinary story and
the account of his death were the cul
mination of a long series Of news
scoops by The Call.
In his last letter Livernash referred
to a man named Lawrence by his so
briquet of "Long- Green." Livernash
was on terms of intimacy with Law
rence and had attempted to sell him
the article before he visited The Call
office, and he knew that that Individual
is generally designated as "Long
Green" — a name which was given him
to describe hia propensity for acquiring
and retaining the property of others.
Livernash said in his letter that "Long
Green" Lawrence would pay blood
money and that he would commit mur
der if there were sufficient in it for
him.
No one connected with The Call was
responsible for these statements. To
have eliminated them from Livernash's
letter would have made the editors of
this journal as guilty of falsifying let
ters as the editors of the Examiner
have been frequently guilty of a simi
lar course. What the dead man wrote
The Call published without amend
ment, and the only Justification it need
ed for doing so was ita desire to re
produce things as they are.
It appears, however, that this refer
ence coupled with the exclusive nature
of the story — which, as has already
bpen stated, was the culmination of a
long series of newspaper achievements
in which the Examiner has been worst
cd — caused the managing editor of the
Examiner to resort to personalities. In
stead of attacking the responsible pro
prietor of The Call, who publishes thf»
paper, and who is alone to be ques
tioned upon matters that appear in its
columns, he singled out an employe for
personal assault.
During several days past the Exam
iner has charged again and again that
Mr. Leake, one of the editors of this
paper, purchased the article from Liv
ernash knowing that he was about to
commit suicide. In other words, it has
alleged that Mr. Leake bribed Liver
nash for the sum of $100 to take his
own life. Of course these charges are
of little or no public moment. They
merely illustrate the methods of the
Examiner in Journalism. They show
that no man, no matter what his situ
ation in life, is free from the cowardly
attack and misrepresentation of the
individual who temporarily controls the
machinery and type of an absent mil
lionaire.
It is these phases of the case and not
the effect the attacks have had upon
Mr. Leake, nor his feeling with respect
to them, which have inspired the pub
lication made by The Call this morn
ing. It is regarded as a duty at this
juncture to make a brief reference to
the character of the newspaper which
has published these assaults and the
character of the man who has origin
ated them, since it is apparent that
any person who seeks to print a news
paper in this city and compete with
the Examiner is certain to be made not
only a victim of its assaults person
ally but his employes are also to be
brought under the ban and libeled and
slandered. The purpose of "Long
Green" Lawrence evidently is to drive
out of journalism in this city every de
cent man who dares to interfere with his
blackmailing schemes or thwart his
efforts to plunder corporations, individ
uals and the public.
Everybody knows that the Examiner
is utterly without principle. Ever since
W. R. Hearst took charge of it it has
been an instrument of blackmailing
and oppression. It is not necessary to
pause to refer to the blackmailing en
terprise which resulted in the death of
a man named Garniss, which is matter
of public record in the courts, nor to
the misrepresentation, lying, faking
and attempts to extort money from
corporations which have always char
acterized the management of the paper.
But the Examinees character rests
upon one conspicuous chapter in its
history which has long been familiar
to the public. We refer to its editorial
sale to the Southern Pacific Company
in 1893 for $30,000. This sale was nego
tiated by Charles M. Palmer, the busi
ness manager of the paper, and was in
dorsed by \V. R. Hearst himself. The
Examiner has never denied the exist
ence of the contract of sale nor at
tempted to explain it.
The bald facts of the matter are
these: The owner of the Examiner, in
consideration of the payment of $30,000
in installments of $1000 per month,
agreed to maintain silence toward the
Southern Pacific Company upon all
matters which affected its business
until the termination of the contract.
A full explanation of the transaction
in which the salient portions of the
contract — those portions which expose
the infamy of Hearst and his paper in
their fiercest light— is given in the ar
ticle accompanying, wnich is copied
from the Evening Post of this city
and which appeared in the issue of
that paper on Saturday, March 21,
1896.
So much for the Examiner. Now, to
show the character of the man who at
the present time is conducting it.
"Long Green" Lawrence was formerly
a trainboy upon the Southern Pacific
Railroad. In tl.ai business he acquired
the assurance which subsequently
caused him to enter boodle journalism.
He is a journalist without the ability to
write or think coherently upon any
public question. He has been known
among his fellow newspaper men as an
individual who does not scruple to re
sort to any means to attain his ends.
Yet he is a coward and poltroon when
confronted with actual danger.
Soon after beginning his business
career as a train news agent he
started a little boyish sheet called
the "Dew Drop," the printing bills for
which are still unpaid. A number of
persons were libeled in th»? little sheet,
and the proprietor soon hungered for a
wider field, which was afforded him as
soon as Hearst was presented the Ex
aminer by his father.
He began his career as a reporter
for the local papers. In 1887 the late
Senator Hearst picked him up as an
available candidate for the Assembly
In one of the city districts. Hearst
was a candidate for Senator, and he
wanted a man elected from that dis
trict who woi-.ld vote for him in the
party caucus and in the Joint conven
tion. He paid the expenses of Law
rence's election, and with the aid of
Boss Buckley succeeded in landing
him in the Assembly. He did not do
this without some trouble. Before the
Legislature met Lawrence became
dissatisfied with the provision that had
been made for him, and without hesi
tation he left the Examiner and en
tered the employ of the Chronicle.
Hearst knew what this meant, and im
mediately entered Into negotiations,
which resulted in reattaching the
young boodler to his paper. Lawrence
voted for Hearst in the Legislature,
and thereby, notwithstanding he had
been amply paid for his services,
aroused in Senator Hearst's bosom a
strong sense of gratitude. Lawrence's
faithfulness was conspicuous, es
pecially since some of Buckley's legis
lators attempted to get a "raise" of
compensation from the old gentleman
before the meeting of the party cau
cus. In this conspiracy, to Lawrence's
credit, be it said, he took no part.
"Long Green's" experience as a legis
lator qualified him to represent the
Examiner at subsequent sessions. In
1891 he appeared at Sacramento as
the accredited reporter of the paper.
What he had learned at the previous
session then became of value to him.
One of the first things he attempted
to do was In his capacity as a news
paper correspondent to blackmail the
widow of Andrew Himmelman out of
$2000. He did this by threatening to
THE SAN FRAXCISCO CALL, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1898.
Malodorous Career Wtych Would Have Placed "Long
Green" Andrew M. Lawrence, Managing Editor
of the Yellow Journal, Behind the Bars
of a Prison H Q d H e Received
His Just Deserts.
oppose with the Examiner the passage
through the Legislature of what was
known as the "Connelly claim."
Many years ago a man named Peter
Connelly performed work for San Fran
cisco which is now known as the "Mar
ket street cut." Through some infor
mality in the proceedings he lost his
right to collect the cost of the improve
ment either from the city or the prop
erty owners who were benefited by it.
The amount of his loss was $130,000, and
in due time he presented his claim to
the Legislature. Although pressed vig
orously during his lifetime, the claim
was never paid. Connelly died and his
rights were acquired by Andrew Him
melman, who in turn also died and left
the legal legacy to his widow. It was this
woman whom Lawrence attempted to
blackmail out of $2000.
Mrs. Himmelman gives her story in
the accompanying affidavit. Her state
ments are corroborated by the affida
vit of Theobald Mauch, her agent in
the matter.
The attempt of "Long Green" Law
rence to hold up Mrs. Himmelman for
this money became the subject of a
legislative sensation at the session of
1891. Franklin P. Buil, the attorney
referred to by Mrs. Himmelman, rose
before the Assembly by permission of
FAC-SIMILE OF PAGE 21 OF LETTER INTRO
DUCED IN EVIDENCE AT THE
CORONER'S INQUEST.
This Is the Best Evidence That John J. Livernash Was in
His Right Mind When He Wrote the History
of His Own Death.
the members and openly charged Law
rence with the crime. Not only did
"Long Green" never refer to the mat
ter again or attempt to defend himself,
but when Hearst, in deference to pub
lic sentiment, relieved him of his du
ties as legislative correspondent he
slunk away from Sacramento In silence.
But the exposure did not crush him.
His assurance came to his rescue im
mediately, and in a short time he was
found in full feather again upon the
Examiner. His talent as a blackmailer
and a falsifier has evidently made a deep
impression upon young Hearst, for that,
individual, notwithstanding the fre
quent exposures of his character, has
continued to employ him in various po
sitions of trust upon his paper. From a
reporter he has been promoted gradu
ally to the position of managing editor,
in which place he now controls the edi
torial policy of the Examiner.
In thus making public the story of
Hearst's and Lawrence's infamy, and in
concluding to denominate them as
blackmailers engaged in publishing a
blackmailing newspaper. The Call has
undertaken a disagreeable task — one
that it would willingly have shirked.
Eut it has seemed that the opportunity
to place an authentic account of one
of "Long Green's" infamous attempts
to blackmail before the public should
not be neglected. The people have a.
right to know the character of the man
who is conducting the Examiner. He
says daily that he is virtuous, honest,
upright and well meaning. He claims
the right to- point the finger of scorn
at others, and with the type and ma
chinery under his control, he does so.
Yet he is a falsifier, a blackmailer and
a scoundrel, who, if Justice were done,
would be behind the bars.
So varied are the accomplishments of
this unclean creature "Long Green"
that only a synopsis of them may be
compressed into an account covering
columns. But these accomplishments
are all those of a rogue. Not once in
the personal history of Lawrence is
there a gleam of a better nature, a hint
of a decent impulse. The man is wholly
bad. If all the truth were known about
his connection with a "cinch" insurance |
bill he would be in the penitentiary, ;
where better people are expiating less i
flagrant crimes than go to make up his
record. If such citizens as L. L. Brom
ley and Isidor Gutte chose to reveal
facts in their possession concerning this ■
particular iniquity he would be doing
the State service in the jute mill. This j
is no rash statement. If "Long Green" i
cares to deny it and demand proofs, i
happily the proofs are accessible and '
complete. There is no necessity of J
burdening this phase of exploitation of I
his moral unworth with more detail.
"Long Green" was the leading spirit
of a notorious baseball "charity" tour- j
nament and the chief beneficiary. He i
appealed to the common sentiment of
humanity for coin on the plea that it
was to go to the poor and deserving.
That he was lying was no surprise.
That he took that which had been con
tributed was accepted as a matter of ;
course by those who had the unhappi- j
ness of the rascal's acquaintance. He
went so far as to cheat the men he had
Induced to enter the contest. Neither j
has it been forgotten that he had an I
armed ruffian who acted as his body- i
guard named referee of a prize-fight; j
that the fight was awarded to the man
who had lost and that "Long Green"
never shook the natural belief that he
shared with the bodyguard that booty
of this peculiar form of sneak-thievery.
Just now he is engaged in an effort
to keep money contributed by a sym
pathetic public for the relief of the
families of firemen killed on duty. It
is hardly necessary to say that this
money would not have been forthcom
ing if the givers had supposed them
selves adding to the ill-got spoils
which already bulged the pockets of
"Long Green." He is also booming a
project to rear a monument to the
glory of Hearst on the pretense that
it will be in honor of the men of the
Maine, and donations are subject to a
10 per cent rake off. The amount of
the "Long Green" rake off has not
been specified, but that it cannot be
more than 90 per cent must wring ebon
drops of agony from his soul.
Perhaps the judgment of Livernash.
as he looked back from the border of
eternity and denounced "Long Green"
as one who would commit murder if the
emolument was sufficient, was too se
vere. To commit murder would require
courage. It would be easier to imagine
him in the act of hiring some one else
to commit the murder and then cheating
the assassin out of his pay. However,
in dealing with facts, it is perhaps use
less to invade the field of speculation.
The estimate made by Livernash will
be generally accepted. "Long Green"
is a boodler, a blackmailer, a vulgar
thief, who with equal facility takes the
bribe offered to dishonest legislators
or cheats a reporter out of hard-earned
pay. Just at a time when he is engagad
in an attempt to loot the treasure-box
of orphans who need the money, to
gain by a national calamity, to traduce
every person who opposes him or hap
pens to know the foulness of his life,
almost any opinion derogatory to him
would be accepted.
These few notations about a scoun
drel disgracing the community have
not been made in the hope of reforming
him, but as a protection to the re
spectability which is ever subject to
his assault, and a notice to the world
that nothing he can say has influence,
that he is regarded as an outcast and
that the protest against his presence
is shared in by all but his fugitive em
ployer.
Under what evil star this parasite
was born, what influence marked him
to fill the role of braggart, law-breaker,
to be a thing despised and shunned, a
pervert, may never be known. That
he is all of these, and that he revels in
his deeps of degradation is enough.
Now The Call drops "Long Green."
When he obtains further attention it
will be because he is in the hands of
the police, in the dock, or at home in
the gray stone institution across the
bay.
HI. %« Ei M % Hl,l^^ TOE
noij i sn;ie> pacific.
(From the Evening Post, March 21, 1896.)
After a week of silence under the
charge that at one time it was in re
ceipt of $1000 per month from the treas
ury of the Southern Pacific Company, the
Examiner admits the main allegation.
Goaded to this confession, it puts the
very best face it can on the matter, but
admits the receipt of this money, admits
that it was discontinued before the ter
mination of the time it was to run, and
publishes garbled correspondence between
itself and the officers of the Southern
Pacific Company which fully discloses the
nature of the agreement.
It prints what purports to be a fac
simile of a letter written by the advertis
ing manager of the Southern Pacific Com
pany to C. M. Palmer, its business man
ager, dated June 29. 1892. It pretends this
letter to be a fac-simile, but this is not
in a strict sense true. The indorsement
printed on the face "of this letter," signed
by Charles F. Crocker, was placed there
July 21, 1*93.
I.et it be carefully noted that this was
simply a letter to C. M. Palmer from an
officer of the Southern Pacific Company,
declaring that that company would agree
to engage space in a World's Fair edition
of the Examiner, for which it would pay
130,000, payable at the rate of $1000 per
month, find then occurs this significant
statement:
"and all in accordance with an agree
ment entered into between the Exam
iner management and C. F. Crocker,
A. N. Towne and William H. Mills,
on behalf of th^ Southern Pacific
Company."
What the Examiner puts forth is a let
ter in which an agreement is referred to,
but which of itself is not an agreement.
There is nothing on the face of it to show
that it was an agreement. It is signed
by but one party, and, in fact, there is no
pretense that it was an agreement except
that when the Examiner desired to hy
pothecate it, caused the vice-president "of
the company to declare on its face that it
would be paid (according to the terms
thereof).
According to the terms thereof, this let
ter declared that what the Southern Pa
cific Company would do would be done in
accordance with an agreement entered
into between the Examiner management
and the officers of the Southern Pacific
Company.
The question arises. What was that
agreement? It is perfectly clear that be
hind this letter there was an agreement,
since it is distinctly referred to, and since
the letter itself was not an agreement.
Here is that agreement, which the letter
of W. H. Mills to the Examiner says was
entered into between the management of
the paper and the Southern Pacific Com
pany, and which the Examiner accepted
and under which Mr. Murphy of the First
National Bank looked to the railroad for
payment of the money advanced to the
Examiner:
The company (is to enjoy immunity from hostility in the col
umns of the Examiner and) is not to be the victim of mendacious
attack or criticism or of misrepresentation; that the Examiner will
not §eek to create hostile sentiment in the minds of the commun
ity against the Southern Pacific Company, or any of the interests
it represents, and that while not stipulating as against all criti
cism, it agrees that criticism shall not proceed from any motive of
malice or malignity, and that such criticism as may be found nec
essary to keep and maintain the confidence of the public, to the
extent that any public sentiment may have been created from
other sources, is to be avoided as much as possible.
That agreement bears the indorsement
that on June 15 the Examiner's agent
"agrees to all except that inclosed in
brackets," after omitting the words:
"is to enjoy immunity from hostil
ity in the columns of the Ex
aminer."
The officers of the Southern Pacific be
lieved that what was left of the agree
ment was worth, with the advertising,
$30,000, in monthly installments of $1000.
The arrangement under the agreement
continued with varying fortunes until
suddenly discontinued by the company on
the ground that one party to it had com
mitted a breach of its covenants.
On this $30,000 contract the Southern
Pacific Company paid $22,000— 517,000 was
paid directly to the Examiner and $5000
was paid to the First National Bank. Its
payment was discontinued, and the bank
required the management of the Exam
iner to make good the amount which had
been advanced upon it. These are state
ments of fact, but we make them with
the humiliated regret that they are true.
There remained, therefore, $8000 of an un
discharged obligation by a perfectly sol
vent debtor, and the question will repeat
itself in the minds of every one: "Why
did not the Examiner bring suit?"
The Examiner publishes - this morning
the full evidence of its own conviction.
Under date of September 24, 1894, C. F.
Crocker addressed W. R. Hearst directly
with these words:
I understand from Mr. Herrin that
in your interview with him you
agreed that at the time this contract
was made, providing for the pay
ment of $30,000 to the Examiner,
it was stated by your agents as an
inducement to the railroad company
for making this contract that the
Examiner would accord to the rail
road company fair treatment in its
columns.
Here Mr. Hearst is directly informed by
the vice-president of the Southern Pa
cific Company by letter that the latter
understands the former to have admit
ted that fair treatment was the basis of
the contract. Where is Mr. Hearst's re
ply, under date of September 25. or any
subsequent time, to this allegation? Mr.
Hearst remained silent, after having re
ceived this statement of his confession,
until March 20, 1896. But his agent and
business manager, T. T. Williams, re
plies, and in that reply he does not say
"Mr. Hearst has never made the admis
sion set forth in your letter." He does
not say "The Examiner never made an
agreement for money, the basis of which
was fair treatment of a corporation," but
he does reply, according to the Exam-
Disgraceful Story of the CoQtract
That Shows Hearst's Ur)!awful
Extortioo of Hush-Morjey
From the Southero
Pacific Company.
iner's own printed statement, under date
of September 25, the day following the
date of Colonel Crocker's letter, as fol
lows:
"Permit me to respectfully suggest that
you have missed the point which is to us
vital. The question of fairness is one
which could only be determined by us,
and could not possibly be a question of
debate or arbitration."
There is no declaration here that the
j Examiner had not agreed to treat the
company fairly as an element and attri
bute of a contract entered into by it. But
there is a claim that the question of fair
ness was one that could only be deter
mined by one party.
Here is a letter to the proprietor of the
Examiner declaring that at the time the
contract was made it was understood by
his agent that the inducement to the con
tract -was fair treatment by the Examiner
of the Southern Pacific Company. There
is no denial of this in the correspondence
which follows, but a practical admission
of it by declaring that the question of
fairness was one that could only be de
termined by "us" (the Examiner), and
could not possibly be a question of debate
i or arbitration.
The Examiner has it in its power to
appeal from allegation and denial, asser
tion and counter assertion, to judicial in
quiry. According to its own statement,
the Southern Pacific Company owes it
$8000. It claims this indebtedness to be
due for legitimate advertising, for a ser
vice it has performed on its part. It must
follow, therefore, that the Southern Pa
cific Company is indebted to the Exam
iner in the sum of $8000. It is a perfectly
solvent debtor. The Examiner can ob
tain judgment against it if the contract
was legitimate, and it can collect any
judgment it obtains. Why did not the
Examiner bring suit for the recovery of
the money, and why does it not now im
mediately proceed to sue for the amount
Which is its due? Our morning contem
porary also has a good action for dam
ages for defamation of character and
against a perfectly solvent party. Until
the Examiner brings suit for the recov
ery of the amount which it claims the
Sou'them Pacific Company owes it for an
advertisement which it published in good
faith on its part, it will stand convicted
before the world of being unable to jus
tify its contract by the standards of good
public policy.
It was not until the Examiner had hy
pothecated the following letter of W. H.
Mills, calling attention to the "agree
ment." that the paper began its criticisms,
which the railroad believed to proceed
from motives of malice or malignity:
PAN FRANCISCO, June 29. 1891
C. M. Palmer. Business Manager of the Ex
aminer, San Francisco, Cal.— Dear Sir: We
hereby agree to engage space in the Grand
Special World's Fair Edition oi" the San Fran
cisco Examiner, matter to bf furnished by us,
including cuts, of twenty pages or 140 columns,
for which the Southern Pacific Company agrees
to pay thirty thousand dollars i$3".000) gold coin
of the United States, payable at the rate of
one thousand dollars ($1000) per month, the
first monthly installment to become due and
payable August 31. IM2. and running thence at
the rate of one thousand dollars ($1000) per
month, or in larger Installments at the option
of the Southern Pacific Company: the matter
and cuts to be furnished by the Southern Pa
cific Company; and all in accordance with an
agreement entered into between the Exam
iner management and C. F. Crocker, A. N.
Towne and William H. Mills, on behalf of the
Southern Pacific Company; it being understood
that the said edition shall have a minimum Is
> sue of five hundred thousand copies, and that
i the same shall be published simultaneously in
I San Francisco and Chicago, on or about the
; date of the official opening of the Columbian
Exposition. And It i» further agreed that the
said matter shall be subject of enlargement,
alteration and revision at the option of the
■ Southern Pacific Company at any time prior
Ito February 1, 1593. Yours very truly
For the Southern Pacific Co.
' The above contract was duly entered into by
the Southern Pacific Company, and the money
will be paid by the treasurer of the company
i to the San Francisco Examiner or order when
due, according to the terms thereof.
CHAS. F. CROCKER. Vice President.
San Francisco, July 21, 1593.
now LAWRENCE
BLACKnAILGD
, ITIUS. IIUIJIEI^IAIV.
State of California, City and County of
San Francisco. — ss.
Catherine Himmelman being first duly
sworn deposes and says: That she is the
widow of Andrew Himmelman and resides
with her son-in-law, Theobald Mauch,
at 513 McAllister street, city and county
of San Francsico, State of California.
That on or about the 14th day of Janu
ary, 1891, she met Mrs. Andrew Lawrence
at the home of Mrs. Anna Young's on
Powell street, in said city. That Mrs.
Young is the mother of Mrs. Lawrence.
Mrs. Lawrence told me at that time that
her husband was at Sacramento, a re
porter for the Examiner, I said: "Per
haps he could do us some good because
we shall have our matter up there."
She. said "she thought he could because
he was so well acquainted. •• She said
she would write to him and have him
come down and see me next Sunday.
On the following Sunday, January 11.
about 11 o'clock a. m., he called at Mr.
Mauch's, 513 McAllister street. When 1
came Into the room he said he had come
to see me about the Market street bill. He
asked me what I was willing to give to
have the bill passed. I said, if the other
claims against the bill were paid. I am
willing to take one-half as my share.
There are several parties interested in the
hill. Peter Connelly has an interest, and
the Irvine Estate claims an Interest. Mr.
Mauch then came in and I told him that
Mr. Mauch was my agent and attending
to all my business and he could talk with
him. I left the room then and he re
mained and talked with Mr. Mauch.
On the 12th day of January. 1891, Mr.
Franklin P. Bull called and I entered into
an agreement with Mr. Bull into attend
ing to all matters connected with the
claim, both in the Legislature and before
the courts. On Saturday, the 17th of
January, 1891. the agreement was signed.
On or about the Bth day of February,
1891, I went over to Mr. Lawrence at Mrs.
Young's on Powell street, near Bush; Mr.
and Sirs. Young and Mr. Lawrence all
present. I asked him, Mr. Lawrence, how
the bill was getting along. He said that
Mr. Bull was putting him off— that lie
kept saying that he "would see me some
other time, and "he didn't keep his ap
pointments with me"; that he was afarld
the bill would not pass. I then told him
that I was willing to give $2000 myself if
he would work for the bill and do what he
could to have it pass. Ho said he didn t
want anything from me; whut there was
in it for him he wonted to get from Mr.
Bull; that he had a paper drawn up by a
lawyer which he wanted Mr. Hull to sign
the next day or he would go for him and
burn the bill and Mr. Bull up; that he
didn't know whether It would utick or not,
but IX Mr. Bull didn't be would make it ao
i hot for him that he will never forget It.
He said that if.it had not been for the
friendship between himself and his ..wife s
mother he would not have waited so long,
because Mr. Bull had not kept his ap
pointments or made any arrangements
with him; that he had made an agree
ment with another gentleman and was ta
divide whatever he could get. out of it. .
I then came home ■ and spoke to Mr-
Maueh and told what had been said, and
he decided to go and tell Mr. Bull what
Lawrence had said. ■ " ■ 'j •
CATHERINA HIMMELMAN.
Subscribed and sworn to before me thla
Bth. day of March, 1891.
(Seal) B. W. WILLIAMS,
Deputy County Clerk in and for the City
and County of San Francisco; State
of California. *
State of California; City and County of
San Francisco— ss. Theodore Mauch, be
ing first duly' sworn, deposes and says:
That he is the son-in-law of Mrs. Cathe
rina Himmelman and resides at 513 Mc-
Allister street, San Francisco, Cal.; that
on or about the 11th day of January, 1891,
Andrew M. Lawrence called at my home,
513 McAllister street, San Francisco, at
about 11 o'clock a. m. He asked for Mrs.
Himmelman. Mrs. Himmelman came
down first, and a few minutes afterward
I came down, and Mrs. Himmelman in
troduced me to him. ' She stated that I
knew all about the matter and whatever
arrangement I agreed to was satisfactory
to her.: We simply talked on the merits
of the bill. He claimed to know all about
it and that it was an .outrage that the
money had not been paid long-ago. ;. He
said . he ' would have to have assistance."
He asked what had been given away last
time. I told him Mr. Connelly had an in
terest in the bill, v also Mr. » Delmas, a3
the attorney, has a certain : percentage,
and that the Irvine estate claimed an in
terest and that other parties that worked
for the bill had an interest. He said that
he would return to Sacramento and when
he ' had made ■'„ the necesasry arrange
ments, etc.,; would telegraph me to come
up and meet him at the French restau
rant. He said he didn't want me there
during • the daytime not -to • come to the
Capitol; but that he would meet, me at
the restaurant and we would agree upon
the.terms, etc. - : : <. •
On Monday, the 12th of January. 1891,
Mr. Bull called with a letter of introduc
tion from Mr. Delmas and we talked over
the matters relating to the 4 bill, and I
told Mr. Bull that I would ' see Mr. Del
mas the following day and then see him.
I also told Mr. Bull what had taken place
between Mr. Lawrence and myself.
The following day I called at Mr. Del-,
mas' office, and the result was that Mr.
Bull was to . see ". Mrs. Himmtlman in re
gard to the matters. • '•■ • v
On January 14 I received a telegram
from Lawrence telling me to come to
Sacramento on the 11 o'clock train and
meet him at the French restaurant. .
I showed the telegram to' Mr. Bull, and
he . advised me to go ;to Sacramento and
see . Mr. Lawrence, and see what ,he ; had
to say, "and if I ■ was ■" satisfied ; with' -the.
proposition it might •be well to employ
him. I did as Mr. Bui; ad vised. I went
to' Sacramento. Arrived there about 11:45
p. m. I then went to Theobald Plauth's,
a liquor merchant of X street. He told
me where the French restaurant was,
and I went over to the restaurant and
Mr. Lawrence was. not there.! I left word
with the proprietor of the restaurant
that I could be found <at Mr. Plauth'Hj
if any one called for ' me. . Shortly after-"
ward the " restaurant-keeper T rt came down
to Mr. , Plauth's and , told me the parties
were waiting: at his place for me. I then *
went up there and met Lawrence. He took
me in a back room and we had supper.
Lawrence said that .he had spoken .to
several about the bill, some who had
voted for the bill two years ago, and
that they approved of the bill. Then
Lawrence stated that the first thing to
do was to fix the newspaper boys; that
he knew them all and could attend to
that, for a certain money ; consideration;
that he was very. close to many members
of • both ; houses and he would get them
to support the bill. ■; He had a list of mem
bers, and went over it with me. I gave
him the vote two ; years ago. ';- He stated
that the measure s would - have to be
handled very quietly, for if Governor
Markhara suspected any bribery or any
contingent fee he would veto the bill, and
it could not- be passed over his head or
veto. ; He. also stated that he would speak
to the Governor, for he knew him very
well, and that he wanted me <to come .up
and that- he knew it would be signed.
I then asked what he wanted. "
' He .: stated ■ that he would have a con
versation with a certain party in regard'
to the matter between then and the next
Sunday, and then call on me at my home.
j He then went out for a J few minutes, and
returned and went j part' way with me
toward the depot, as far ;as the electric
light. Before we reached the light he
I stated he did not want to be seen in my
j company by any one, and so he left me.
I came back to the city.
On Saturday I - received a note from
Franklin P. Bull asking if Mrs. Himmel
man "desired ..him .to take charge of her
matters, as it ought to be attended to at
once. I immediately went to his office
and ■ requested him to come out to . the
house at 1 o'clock and see Mrs. Himmel
man about the agreement. He did so and
the agreement was drawn up and signed
between • them. ' >
On Sunday, the 18th day of February,
I 1891, Mr. Andrew Lawrence called and I
! told him Mr. Bull had taken charge of
I Mrs. Himmelman's matters; that he
would have to see Mr. Bull. He stated
that he felt disappointed that the matter
should have been taken out of his hands;
I that he had made certain promises that
; would have to be fulfilled by Mr. Bull.
I and was very bitter against Mr. Bull, say-
I ing, that he was entirely the wrong per
| son to take charge of the bill. He was
not a lobbyist, and the boys would not
have anything to do with him. He asked
I what agreement I had made with him. I
1 told him Mrs. Himmelman had made the
i agreement, but I declined to state the
I terms. I told him" Mr.. Bull would do
I what was right i as far as he- was con-
I cerned ; to ', see > Mr. Bull at Sacramento,
and if they failed to come -to any agree- '
! ment Mrs. Himmelman; would see that he
! received compensation for his services. •
Sunday, the Bth of February, 1891, .upon
! Mrs. Himmelman's ... return • from -.- Mrs.
' Young's -I went "over jto -see; Mr. Bull at
i his residence on Scott street. • I found him
! at home and told him what Mr. Lawrence
: had said to Mra.jHimrnelman; that he
; had a contract or s assignment drawn up
between ; him and Mr. ; Bull by a * lawyer
which he wanted . Mr. Bull >> to sign on
Monday, when he came \to ; Sacramento,
assigning .to ; him, Lawrence, jan interest
in the claim, and if . he refused- to sign
i the agreement then he : (Lawrence) would
! burn him and the bill up. I told Mr. Bull
I that Mrs. Himmelman had offered Mr.
1 Lawrence '12000, but that rhe had refused
■ to take it; said that it was not enough
and he wanted what: there was in it for
him : to come from Mr. ,; Bull.; That he
didn't know whether it would hold or not,
but ■if - Bull refused ■„ to i pay the money
when he got it he would. make it so hot
for him that he would >:■ never forget i It.
, Mr. Bull. then stated. "Well; Mr. Mauch,
! as I have already stated to you. this
; friend >of i yours, Lawrence, has :: already
; demanded of me $10,000 for • himself , and
: friend. I will' never .; pay i one ■" cent " on a
■ ■ blackmail ' proposition, for there •is ' all
, there is .-in, it. If Mrs. Himmelman sees
j fit to : settle with him all right. I shall,
! not. .: '<v -,- - THEOBALD ; MAUCH. *
•■.- Subscribed , and sworn before ■ me this
■■ Bth day of March, 1831. - . ■ .'
r- (Seal) •:.; ,:a;p^K:.W: WILLIAMS.
• Deputy County Clerk in and for the City
and County of San Francisco, State of
•--.■ California.. '-.- :- ■- ? - . .* :
Wgg&&M !^~' '"' ' ■ »'■
I H --.■■■: ■ - ~. ' -
Low's Horehound Cough Syrup for
i hoarseness, price 10c. 417 Sansonie st. •